Pocket Cinema Pro

Not good. Prime must have the right idea, as long as you can start with adequate (cough cough) rating system to match quality of content with users. There is an advertisement sponsored service called Tubi now. So, there are plenty of options cropping up for people

You're right that Netflix probably deals with a lot of.... not too good films, and you're also right that Amazon will let just about everything on it (I watched one recently that....yikes). But my understanding is that Amazon pays per minute played while Netflix pays a fixed sum (an acquaintance of mine sold a horror film to Netflix a few years ago that was produced for about $25,000....and they got $10k from Netflix. Hmmm....

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's what you want in a fully professional camera intended for such things as broadcast use. You then use an appropriate camera. The BMPCC4K is competing against the likes of DSLRs, even the likes of a Canon 1Dx, which can cost up to 4x as much.

In my opinion the PCC4k is not competing against DSLRs - it is compact version of the URSA line. My very first camera from BMD - the Cinema Camera - already had SDI out. BMD has brought the extra prices for SDI equipment down to a very small difference between SDI and HDMI.

That's a breach lock mount and then it's no longer a m4/3 mount, the entire camera becomes something else. You seem to be after a completely new camera, totally different from the BMPCC4K. I thought this thread was about improvements/wish lists for the existing design.

So you are saying a locking mount wouldn't be an improvement? Of course the mount would be still compatible to the MFT standard, like the cine EF mount from Metabones is fully compatible.
The big benefit would be that we wouldn't have to deal with wobble lenses anymore. My Olympus 12-100 does a lot of wobbling on my PCC4k, while even my biggest EF lenses are sitting super tight on the PCC4k when mounted through the Metabones Cine EF Speedbooster (which is locked in place by a lens support).

Sony has done this with the FS7, Canon has done this with the C700 or as an upgrade for the C300 MKII.

That video interview with Dan May is quite interesting. I may have misinterpreted one remark or not heard it correctly, but at one point he mentioned “12 years” working with cameras. Even if he was thinking of 12 years including what’s happening for NAB 2019, that implied BMD started working on a camera project by 2007. I’d welcome anyone who can correct my misunderstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's what you want in a fully professional camera intended for such things as broadcast use. You then use an appropriate camera. The BMPCC4K is competing against the likes of DSLRs, even the likes of a Canon 1Dx, which can cost up to 4x as much.

In my opinion the PCC4k is not competing against DSLRs - it is compact version of the URSA line. My very first camera from BMD - the Cinema Camera - already had SDI out. BMD has brought the extra prices for SDI equipment down to a very small difference between SDI and HDMI.

That's a breach lock mount and then it's no longer a m4/3 mount, the entire camera becomes something else. You seem to be after a completely new camera, totally different from the BMPCC4K. I thought this thread was about improvements/wish lists for the existing design.

So you are saying a locking mount wouldn't be an improvement? Of course the mount would be still compatible to the MFT standard,

I was thinking of mentioning that.

That video interview with Dan May is quite interesting. I may have misinterpreted one remark or not heard it correctly, but at one point he mentioned “12 years” working with cameras. Even if he was thinking of 12 years including what’s happening for NAB 2019, that implied BMD started working on a camera project by 2007. I’d welcome anyone who can correct my misunderstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know somebody that was taking his camera design around to them for a job, and was looking at getting me on board. I'd been waiting a while for them to come out.

One of the things I can see in the original cinema camera design, is our notion of a simple camera. We even had one guy in the circles who wanted to doing a digital camera without display, but just an optical viewfinder where you would have to judge everything like you did with film stock. But, the notion of the simple camera was yesteryear. Mini like functionality would have been good. Even down to the simple case design (I wonder if that had been something I put forwards before 2007) a little extra work would have answered niggles people had there, rather than make it like one of my view cams The simple case stuff is what a small company starts out with. Red didn't have the balls to do my dual position design. But a lot of a these things are obvious. You get the thing in hand and you handle it around until you work out the handability quirks. Big secret. Steve used to do the different formats of product with Ives at Apple, and I have also practiced for many years. That's how you figure out how to make a professional camera that people will love to use, the size of a phone. Miss that. A lot of things ate incredibly complex, but you can do a case for a handheld product that people will love and will tank the sales of the opposition, like that. The fin design I mentioned before is like that.

In matter of fact, I have got a Sony handy cam, and sharp viewcam, beach enclosures that could be made into cinema cameras (thought the perspex lens window is not good).

Let's sit back here and look at the pocket cage situation. Depending on the weight of what you want to carry on the cage, flat alloy strapping may work. You inset the clip over the strap between the body and strap. (Deleted).. so there is substantial weight bearing and rigor there, in something elegant and skin deep. In matter of fact I have an extreme elegant design in hand right now, which would make a lot improvements. Stunning. Amazing nobody hasn't got one out yet. But stepping back, another thought occurs, what about replacing the pocket 4k case with a better one, as a mod. Would anybody be interested in that? Depending on the configuration of components, one could shrink things by rearranging. But that may require recertification.

Obviously there Ian so much speculation here. I have learned one thing from owning an Ursa Mini 4.6k. WAIT maybe a year after BMD releases a camera so that that camera has hadany bug fixed resolved, or for a newer version of the camera to be released. So much hype surrrounds their equipment that I think people rush to buy them. The BMPCC4K will not be obsolete in a year, and a PRO version will be in the wings if you know BMD. The price of a second hand BMPCC4K should be under $1000 by then as well.

Obviously there Ian so much speculation here. I have learned one thing from owning an Ursa Mini 4.6k. WAIT maybe a year after BMD releases a camera so that that camera has hadany bug fixed resolved, or for a newer version of the camera to be released. So much hype surrrounds their equipment that I think people rush to buy them. The BMPCC4K will not be obsolete in a year, and a PRO version will be in the wings if you know BMD. The price of a second hand BMPCC4K should be under $1000 by then as well.

I've put the PCC4K put through several productions since I got it at the beginning of October and it has worked pretty solid so far. Only problem is that sometimes the connection to the MFT lens can get lost - solved after a restart. It seems because of the slight wiggle of the MFT mount, that sometimes when I grab the lens during handheld shots, the lens electronics gets disturbed. Other than that the camera is a nice performer and hasn't let me down, even on very long shoots.

Only problem is that sometimes the connection to the MFT lens can get lost - solved after a restart. It seems because of the slight wiggle of the MFT mount, that sometimes when I grab the lens during handheld shots, the lens electronics gets disturbed.

Yours is not the first report of play in the mount, but they're not all that way. Mine, FWIW, is air-tight. Not seeking a return?

that implied BMD started working on a camera project by 2007. I’d welcome anyone who can correct my misunderstanding.

I think maybe Dan is talking about his own working history.

JB

Of course you can make a device to tighten a lens while maintaining appropriate lens distance. Shims and spacers etc, something to tighten a locking mechanism, whatever is the problem. But if it is only some cameras and not others, then best to contact BM about fixing it.

Agree with all of this. At the very least a tilt screen, which I still don’t understand why BM didn’t include it.

What if it meant doing it well would add 500 bucks to the price ? I wonder if the camera would still be as backordered popular ?

Meanwhile I just mount a 5" VA (same screen) on the top using a simple hinge. I can then have two screens and it barely adds anything to the size or weight realistically.

Here's an example of it in use on the series I'm currently working on.

https://flic.kr/p/PZCm3n

You actually couldn't do this shot with a tiltable screen. Having the two screens means you can. You can use the "bottom screen" when it's tilted down and then the top screen when it's tilted up.

Either that, or BMD needs to figure out how to drain less battery life for their cameras.

Mostly it's the solid state cooling they use. That won't change.

JB

Peltier coolers. Yes, they generate heat, what are they attached to?

Tiltable screens should be out of patent. Where does the $500 come from John?

What they need is a joint (top corner to mid point) where they can swivel the screen up down and around to the side where you can rotate it back around as a side viewfnder when on a rig. Would cover many angles, and you could use it for self shooting.

If only they had descent WiFi or Bluetooth, people could just mount and swivel their phones.

Peltier coolers. Yes, they generate heat, what are they attached to?

Tiltable screens should be out of patent. Where does the $500 come from John?

What they need is a joint (top corner to mid point) where they can swivel the screen up down and around to the side where you can rotate it back around as a side viewfnder when on a rig. Would cover many angles, and you could use it for self shooting.

If only they had descent WiFi or Bluetooth, people could just mount and swivel their phones.

As much as I'd love a simple tilt monitor the price comes from creating the plastic injection moulds and assembly costs in an already poor QC pipeline, sadly I'm sure we'd already have people complaining that their tilt screen is falling off. Along with most likely needing a smaller LCD to fit the hinge into the body's length which would increase costs and give you a poorer quality monitor much like the one that comes with the UMP, 4 inch monitors aren't as common as the standard 5.5 inch smart phone monitors. I wouldn't mind one that simply only tilts up and down like a sideways door for waist level shooting but there's still an increased cost and complexity there. A monitor like that on the sony mirrorless cameras is extra fiddly with very small parts.

The thing is though I'd be happy to pay if I know the QC was there to back up the extra cost, not being required to run a second monitor and manage extra batteries can be really handy. But I can also see how the pocket is designed to be as simple to manufacture as possible to push out 4k raw into peoples hands and boost resolve studio purchase/use in the prosumer market.

I think maybe Dan is talking about his own working history.

JB

Thank you, John.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's far more to it than that. First there's the engineering and design costs of not just the swivel mechanism, but the camera body itself, the housing for the screen, the cabling etc (the side ports may have to be redesigned etc). Then there's a lot of testing to determine actual functionality, durability, MTBF etc; we're talking about a screen that's starting to weigh a lot more if it's to be robust and not flex. Then you have to add in the additional manufacturing, assembly, parts and servicing requirements, inventory, warehousing costs etc. These aren't all of the costs involved. No change is trivial.

And the size.

That’s the value equation. People already complain it’s too big. If a tiltable hinge was added that could support such a large screen then it adds say 20% more to the size and the same again in price then is it worth it ?

JB

And the size.

That’s the value equation. People already complain it’s too big. If a tiltable hinge was added that could support such a large screen then it adds say 20% more to the size and the same again in price then is it worth it ?

JB

Here's my unasked for solution, then. Forget 4K, and use a 2.5 or 3K sensor instead, downsampled to HD, since most likely buyers of <$2000 cameras aren't under contract with Netflix. Then, since maybe .1% of P4K buyers have the grading skills to usefully exploit raw, drop it in favor of Prores only.

Now, with reduced power/size/cooling requirements, start over, offering the conveniences commonly available in comparably priced cameras.

I might also point out that there's no way I would have bought this camera if all it shot was 2K, and I suspect that the thousands of others wouldn't have either. Every new camera is coming out with at least 4K, even mobile phones, what a retrograde step 2K would have been, especially as 4K sensors would likely cost no more than lesser ones.

It's exactly that kind of consumer thinking -- bigger must be better -- which makes an ideal design impossible. When even $1299 cameras have to offer 4K to have any hope of selling to the masses, you you get one of two outcomes: either what's supposed to to be a small manageable camera ends up in some enormous rig or the user is constantly fighting the limitations which the larger manufacturers managed satisfactorily a few camera generations ago.

And let me try to preempt the likely counter-argument: if you really have customers who demand 4K, or the quality of life will be intolerable without 4K, BMD does make a camera for your purposes. It's called the UMP.

John Paines, the DCI 4K and UHD sensor capture is even more appealing to those whose deliverables are 2K and HD. Sure my phone shoots 4K and that’s clearly a consumer device (regardless of the few people that choose to shoot a feature with a phone for the free publicity that follows), but that doesn’t make the Pocket4K less professional when you look at the entire ecosystem that can surround it to deliver my HD video.

It’s far from the top rung on the ladder of cameras used to produce 4K and HD content, but it’s well positioned for its cost and capabilities. I can’t go out on a limb comparing it to the URSA Mini 4.6K cameras but I shall have a better idea in January when I plan to use both cameras in a shoot. I think both cameras will have significant updates in 2019, so my conclusions in January are preliminary.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Professionals have produced the highest quality dramatic material for years on HD. as well as S16mm, and there have been no complaints that the image doesn't resolve enough detail or that without down-sampling from 4K life is unsatisfactory.

And yet, remarkably, HD is not enough for the wedding, industrial and events crowd, not to mention the rankest amateurs who, judging from the quality of the posts at the facebook BMPCC 4K group, don't have a clue how to use the camera.

This is consumerism run amok.

And to fully visualise the difference between 4K and 2K:

And that proves what? Material is 4x better on 4k than HD?

What's silly is resisting any and all rational discussion of the camera (which I own, btw) which isn't endlessly admiring.

I don't know what argument would satisfy you. You reject all suggestions for improvement, claiming those changes are impossible, and then just as passionately resist suggestions for actually making those improvements possible.

Clearly, not a productive discussion.

...Why bother with 2K when 1080p is virtually the same?

1) 2K DCI is a Cinema standard and the BMPCC4K is a Cinema Camera

2) 2K is an even multiple downscale from 4K which is the prime calling card of the BMPCC4K

3) Shooting ProRes 2K non-windowed is a very economical approach to get the much greater field of view and definition of 4K.

4) 2K gives you some economical wiggle room to reframe for HD delivery.

5) it’s a virtually no-cost option to include in the camera, so I asked for it. It’s just an option that you can choose to ignore or use. I shoot 2K much more often than HD.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought I was answering your question that I quoted regardless of the context. I’m out of this conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's far more to it than that. First there's the engineering and design costs of not just the swivel mechanism, but the camera body itself, the housing for the screen, the cabling etc (the side ports may have to be redesigned etc). Then there's a lot of testing to determine actual functionality, durability, MTBF etc; we're talking about a screen that's starting to weigh a lot more if it's to be robust and not flex. Then you have to add in the additional manufacturing, assembly, parts and servicing requirements, inventory, warehousing costs etc. These aren't all of the costs involved. No change is trivial.

Well, Christmas is over, but you guys are still here.

Repeating things I've said me doesn't make me wrong you know. Of course bug accommodated all those things spread across the production life of the product, which is the way to use them. So when they make a new model, the sales of that model divide up the cost between them reducing the price o'er unit. This is exactly how the pocket 4k fits in the current price. So, in the end, the extra cost is absorbed a lot, and maybe a lot lower then you might expect to begin with.

Look, AI, in every forum there are a handful of people that want to challenge things, the same people on lots of threads. They might see themselves as defending concepts (their interpretation) of what is right, their mind has a storage place which says something is something, and they hold onto it, spreading negatively about challenges to their concepts. Where life is learning. Rationalising what could be actually, and is. Dynamically and flexibly. In the Bible where two groups. One the Pharisees who worked out what to believe, and one the Sadducees who maybe were too liberal instead of conservative. Both where denounced by Jesus as missing the point. In Biblical context it was about relating to and loving and as a consequence obeying God, depending on him to work things out. Its not the sane here, but the two groups illustrate the point. If we were to look at another example this time, Doc Martin TV series from England. The Doc is a bit of a doofus. He has this massive knowledge beyond his specialist field as a surgeon where he just comes up with the ideal diagnosis at the drop of a hat, and the often errant medical establishment is the all seeing guide to knowledge, and outside is fraud.. Very unrealistic. On the other hand, in the series House, House has massive knowledge, deals with highly complex cases, and investigates and seeks out new knowledge in order to cure people, inside or outside the medical establishment, whatever is true. He is not constraining himself. One of these in real life is a fantasy way of doing things, one is not. We get doctors thinking they can be like a Doc Martin without external reference. If you have a challenging condition past their limited in real life knowledge, they can seriously negatively affect you or kill you. Where as in real life, not the fantasy half gone House character, a highly skilled person like this can seek out more, and have a wider field of knowledge because of it, spend time actually diagnosing and researching a problem looking for proof outside of prelearned route medical knowledge as need be (a lot of future medical practice cones up in research many years before, even decades, and as a lot of medical issues are biochemical, it means that the successful practices of alternative medicine can indicate biochemical paths), and find better avenues for hard to treat conditions. Seeing their limitations they seek out more. Now, while a wishful Martin might be more to kill you given a challenging enough condition past their limited competence in 2 minute+ consultations. A competent House is only really likely to kill you if he must in order to stop you dieimg now. The show is a bit of a joke, they are always talking about risk assessment of allowing him to treat people much more likely to die in other doctors hands, which is negligence. People likely to die die more often, and people likely to due note often in another's hands, are more likely to die. You won't save everybody, but as long as you can competently save more and in a better way. There is a lot to argue about that example and how things operate in real life, but the illustration of the method if thinking holds, a competent person that thinks they know it, but is not open to learning more if there is significant more to learn, is in the end incompetent. The competent person who can recognise limitation and learn note, is potentially competent about the circumstance. However, the incompetent person who can't learn more might be competent depending on circumstance. The incompetent who is open to learn more is still potentially incompetent, or maybe just stuff it up (get a competent second opinion). Don't regard doctors personabilty first, regard their professional competence.

Now, when my autism spectrum disorder gets going despite treatment, I walk around like a Doc Martin (though I'm not as rude, or grumpy). So, I KNOW what I'm talking about, and I she the limitations. That should cover multiple angles.

Now, seriously. My $49AU fullhd camcorder has a swivel screen. A ball allow joint and wiring is very cheap. However, doing it the way I want where you get up down from back and side positions, including a full swivel around might be more complex.

A good version of this (remember this is not an built tough $50k etc Arri, it's a $1295US camera) only needs to be as thin as a phone, using similar parts even. The size increase shouldn't be much of an real issue.

What's silly is resisting any and all rational discussion of the camera (which I own, btw) which isn't endlessly admiring.

I don't know what argument would satisfy you. You reject all suggestions for improvement, claiming those changes are impossible, and then just as passionately resist suggestions for actually making those improvements possible.

Clearly, not a productive discussion.

Professionals have produced the highest quality dramatic material for years on HD. as well as S16mm, and there have been no complaints that the image doesn't resolve enough detail or that without down-sampling from 4K life is unsatisfactory.

And yet, remarkably, HD is not enough for the wedding, industrial and events crowd, not to mention the rankest amateurs who, judging from the quality of the posts at the facebook BMPCC 4K group, don't have a clue how to use the camera.

This is consumerism run amok.

And to fully visualise the difference between 4K and 2K:

And that proves what? Material is 4x better on 4k than HD?

I have to side with both of you. I'm interested in what will be good for most of the market, not just myself or some smaller group. So 4k should he a happy medium, even on future wall screens, for those significant numbers who can see 8k at some time in their lives, and those that can see somewhere less. However, 8k acquisition should help 4k or less deliverables, and other things. On the other hand, what is the point of opposing good improvements just for the sake of it. The camera, us and the company would benefit from many improvements mentioned here, and they are mostly not going cist much if you simply put them in the design.of the next midel.

Now John, I have to ask. You talk about S16 and HD being good enough for years, but how much of that is first SD or less TV, DVD etc, where the grain and resolution problems are hidden by lower resolution pixels?

Young people with a big TV and a bigger one coming in coming decades, probably will appreciate the extra clarity 4k+. Which is an extra quality product to sell. People don't not buy blurays and watch only SD digital TV and DVD's.

John, where does the $500 come in?

Netflix won't look at submissions off the street, they have to go through a distributor/aggregator, though on occasion their reps will find something on the festival circuit they want to acquire.

Exactly why you need to know someone there...

I doubt 4K will make any difference. For no-name projects, they don't pay well, regardless. Most people don't begin to make their money back, with the typical 2-year exclusive agreement.

4K doesn't make a difference. Some people who've sold films to Netflix have attested to that pesonally.

Part of why a lot of films don't make any money on Netflix is that a lot of the filmmakers treat getting the film onto Netflix as a goal and don't continue to promote it after it's up.

Netflix won't look at submissions off the street, they have to go through a distributor/aggregator, though on occasion their reps will find something on the festival circuit they want to acquire.

Exactly why you need to know someone there...

I doubt 4K will make any difference. For no-name projects, they don't pay well, regardless. Most people don't begin to make their money back, with the typical 2-year exclusive agreement.

4K doesn't make a difference. Some people who've sold films to Netflix have attested to that pesonally.

Part of why a lot of films don't make any money on Netflix is that a lot of the filmmakers treat getting the film onto Netflix as a goal and don't continue to promote it after it's up.

Yeah, 4K honestly is just a marketing gimmick. Unless your sitting right up close to the monitor, or watching on a 70 inch TV, you’re not gonna see much of a difference. 4K should really be more used for post work, like cropping and green screening.

And I agree with Netflix. The problem with them is that there’s too much content being added every week. If you didn’t see the film the week it was added, it’s gonna be buried and forgotten the week after. It’s not like Blockbuster, where the movie stays on the same shelf for a month or two. You got that one week to get your audience, and pray word of mouth keeps the movie alive. If not, it’s buried in the trash of more “Netflix (we bought a random movie) Originals!”. Bad enough there’s no quality control going on with them right now.

Part of why a lot of films don't make any money on Netflix is that a lot of the filmmakers treat getting the film onto Netflix as a goal and don't continue to promote it after it's up.

Unless you or the cast have a social media following in the millions, or an advertising budget in the tens of millions, you're going to have a hard time promoting the movie, distinguishing it from thousands of others. Even if you do, Netflix doesn't base payment on how many times the movie is viewed. You sell them a license, and that's it.

Amazon has a different model, but in order to see any income, the views have to be enormous -- far beyond the promotional means of a modestly budgeted production. It's rarely been true that these movies make their money back, and that's still true. The best most people can hope for is lots of illegal downloads -- at least people see the film that way.

About Amazon Prime: the only ones benefiting from this all-you-can-eat model are the audience and Amazon. I've calculated it through for a director friend - even if his movie sits on top for the next ten years and is watched by the maximum amount of viewers possible for the payout, he won't get to break even, because Amazon has put a cap on the maximum they pay out per year and the pay per view is ridiculously low.

I'm all for a better product but if it was so easy to add these upgrades at minimal cost then why wouldn't they want to give the users what they want?

I've never seen BM as a company to purposefully withold to make a buck. I feel like the aim for the product was just different than what people expected.

I am all for a pocket pro! All in one, small form, no accessories, sign me up.

Again, the industry sending themselves broke. They want not to profit share, throw muck against the wall and see what sticks, and throw the wall at users so they can't sort through to what suites them. Not very brainy, astute or ingenious, but that's what happens when you hire money men and graduates and run them on the brawn of empty caffeine without much talent, rather than hire talent.

Firstly, they should at least profit share x percentage of net profit distributed to licencers, based on per second fraction of monthly view, uncapped, and a bonus if they finished the content (people liked it enough to watch it through). Immediately everybody with good content that people want to watch benefits. Second, do a good rating and content to user matching system (below).

The reality, is that they are leaving themselves open to individual content web pages being used, not requiring license negotiations. Just produce and put up, using a third party back end hosting service. Using trusted review sites, who supply links for a small small commission, people read and see good content and follow the link for advertised sponsored feed, or pay per view. Now comes word of mouth and content to user matching services on a trusted review site. People alert each other on and off site, and the site owners, to good content. Users mainly use a couple of sites, and search engines to find trending movies which takes them to these sites. Other things like a Columbia Picture, Fox, Disney etc content portals exists which you go directly to or hook through trusted review sites. This is sort of one of the ultimate destiny of maximising content makers returns for good content, which we might be headed as the big boys paint themselves into a corner too content restricted, and/or low quality for viewers and too little return for content makers. The whole Netflix original stuff also takes away from licensees stuff getting watched, which should take away from the amount the one licensing is ultimately willing to pay.


Chris,

Not in Australia. Over here there is so little on Netflix, you go, oh they have added something new, and do much not so great (Netflix originals actually help here. But, they seem to get delayed a lot, so I wonder if some are released after a run somewhere else here, strangely). Maybe even blockbusters still have more variety.

The suggested movies and suggested genre lists seem to actually work at getting relevant content up in to view here. A simple algorithm that tracks what similar users, and those of similar taste inna subcategory, vote up in common allows you to direct other content they liked which you should like to a list. But the rating system is now up or down, which really not great. If people could vote 1-10, for 4 stars of terrible, 2 stars of mediocre, and 4 stars of good, you could work out things a lot better. 5 stars to, bit not as good. But, you really need a rating for quality, rating for liking of the film, and maybe a rating for would In recommend the thing. Doing a search on these ratings you could sink everything bad quality pick based on what you like that others like you would recommend. You should have pretty god picks. I wanted to do a certain website maybe decades ago, where I came up with weighted systems to match games to users. Netflix system is not nearly as good, they put on the lists titles I have already seen, even ones I down voted. I mean, come on.

+John. That's what I thought.

Ryan, people just aren't that good, otherwise every film would be a masterpiece. The reality is people get an idea, make something thinking it is good enough for whatever reasons, without really contemplating the philosophical design nature of what the user will ultimately enjoy. The original list was pretty modest. There is no evidence that a tilt screen will ultimately cost $500 more, even an oled one, that sounds like a bad it's a monitor in a box with a hinge which should be doable cheaper than a similar sized (but thinner) phone.

We can split the difference, they can spend a $1-$5 adding WiFi, and we can mount $100+ phones on a hinge. Sounds like a solution, a USB to phone, or WiFi dongle or wifi card firmware support to use with a phone. BM? Mr Petty?

Yeah, 4K honestly is just a marketing gimmick. Unless your sitting right up close to the monitor, or watching on a 70 inch TV, you’re not gonna see much of a difference. 4K should really be more used for post work, like cropping and green screening.

It's only for Netflix partner productions, where Netflix is paying for them, that 4K matters. Otherwise, it just needs to be good.

And I agree with Netflix. The problem with them is that there’s too much content being added every week. If you didn’t see the film the week it was added, it’s gonna be buried and forgotten the week after. It’s not like Blockbuster, where the movie stays on the same shelf for a month or two. You got that one week to get your audience, and pray word of mouth keeps the movie alive. If not, it’s buried in the trash of more “Netflix (we bought a random movie) Originals!”. Bad enough there’s no quality control going on with them right now.

That's true. I don't agree that it's beyond the means of a modestly budgeted production; it's usually just that the modestly budgeted productions don't put in any effort. I know a few that have put in the effort to build some pretty sizable audiences, and they actually DO make money... but it took them years to build that audience, and they stay dedicated to staying engaged with their audiences.

Just dreaming here...
I would love to pay $2299 for a BMPCCPro4K that takes the current Pocket4K and adds:
- Tiltable Screen
- Electronic ND filter (variable - exposure adapts to maintain set shutter and/or exposure)
- Weather Proof body
- Reliable Auto Focus (similar to Canon)
- Larger battery
- $299 EVF option that clicks on top of the camera

Basically the same lean body but a clear step up from the current Pocket 4K.

Thoughts?

I've just had a thought, anybody know if different parts to sort of me this true for Dacloo.

I mean a WiFi USB mini dongle to use a phone as a tiltable touch display on a mini cage.

A basic weather resistant body skin with room for bigger battery (a 3D printer design job?) With a cage or built in cage holes to mount equipment and a hinge for a phone display.

A lens sealing kit.

A mountable electronic ND filter.

A EVF, or part of a VR unit, such as the pimax which is 4k a electro wetting display with nearly complete dci-p3 coverage a lit cheaper than oled.

An firmware update to support it all.

That might even fit in his $2299 price.

Has anybody attempted design of cages and cases for the Micro mod work?

Isn't that the case with everything? Firstly, it's the story that's most important and, secondly, it's consistency in the way the stories are presented, even though they may be completely different. When the audience tunes in, they know what to expect.

I don't think that the consistency part is as important, unless it's a franchise trope. The most successful horror films lately have for example NOT followed the standard bogus formula.

A classic example of not doing this is the latest Doctor Who (which I haven't seen) that apparently now has audience numbers plummeting and ratings nose diving because it moved away from what the audience has always loved about the series.

https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/jodie-whittaker-doctor-who-season-11-ratings.html

Ratings nosedive? Not as far as I can see...

The reviews have been pretty strong also, at least the ones I've found.

Doc Who. Isn't it ironic. Decades ago they went stupid on doctor who listing around, and it got canned just after they tried to get back to credibility. After a couple of Stella Doctors things were not as good on doctor 5, who wasn't bad (except that cricket episode etc) but come Trial of a Time Lord, it was a circus literally, and that galatic circus, and Ace (give me a break) years latter was just not that watchable. Come the new series, the rubbish was back, except it was good rubbish. Now, after a success of increasingly good doctors, with the last the best rubbish doctor who sort of is in between the credible and rubbish world. Now, the new doctors story lines conduct remind me more of the style of the story of the old doctor 3, 4, and 5, which is charming, and slower (less manic psycho). More slower paced. Which is not what the intermediate audiences were attracted to. Maybe it was deliberate to lend more to the gender change, rather than little boys with their toys amusingly waving them about. I actually quite like her, where as if she was a wand waving maniac I would finally nail a Do Not Revive sign on the series. However, the new episodes are a bit slow, constricted, clingy, somewhat, but still unrealistic, and some of the passivist rewrite of character is a bit much. Sort of nearly there as far as what could keep it going, and 50% of red hot. But then again, I'm still waiting for a Matrix like Doctor Who (with cool swords ).

Anyway, next time maybe she'll get some regeneration problems and have to merge with Queen Elisabeth from the space whale episode.

Maybe Rakesh was talking about elsewhere, in Britain maybe? 1.6 million viewers over the season is a blip. You would think 16 million at least, even in Britain, to be serious ratings for such a series. Maybe that's why the new episodes seem constricted, budgeting? I wasn't aware they were hurting this badly.

Yikes. Rotten Tomatoes seems like a bit of a tough crowd. I just posted a review of a movie recently which received the same score, but it wasn't that bad (or good for that matter). A group of people just seemed to have personal expectations which weren't met, so flayed it. Seen the same sort of people do this on forums, no balance to find truth objectively.

Lol. Listening to that video. Doesn't occur to the guy that people like to complain more than vote up something in review, and negatively people even more loudly, which makes that part of his argument fall apart bury itself and put a do not disturb sign on the grave. Nit picky wicky's.

Anyway, aren't we suppose to be talking about something to do with pocket cinema pro, not Netflix, prime or Doctor Who. Like my post above.

I merely say Pro means more production handy (for different types of work) and at least an image spec like the Alexa, because it works well enough compared to human vision. What were discussed here is a bit of a mixture of these things, mainly the non Alexa image stuff, as we can't change the sensor before a new camera, but many other things can more easily be adapted.

BTW, who cares about Netflix. They didn't do The Expanse, and have removed it. The future is self distribution with high return advertising or pay to view. I am still planning a high return advertising platform for websites to beat the others, one of my future business plans. Cut out the other middlemen for a low fee service to help websites, with a specific formula to make advertising work and rescue it. So, such a thing would work on video content too, if anybody would like to do it. Murdoch and newscorp are wasting their money, they need to get in on an advertising scheme like this, then news may work again. The advertising industry cowboys have killed the value of the advertising dollar cold, which is what is so badly affecting online news value.

Once people can rent back end video commerce server solutions cheaply for their own content, the days of YouTube as a desperate indie feature distribution platform will be coming to an end. Even tweet is doing something like a 90% pass through to content providers on advertising now. With the pocket 4k pro, we are on the cusp of a revolution in local content through local portals using back end servers, and advertising. TV networks are going to take a hit.

The future is self distribution with high return advertising or pay to view.

Is that right?

So yes, the Pocket 4K does beg the question, what cameras will BM come out with next?

Looking at their product line I would say that the Ursa Mini 4K and 4.6K are probably on their way out. I expect there to be a new 6K camera, possibly full frame, maybe it will be called the Ursa Mini Pro FF 6K? If the Ursa Mini 4K and 4.6K go away I expect there to be a hole to be filled. But I doubt they will call it the Pocket Cinema Pro, maybe Cinema Pro, but I expect them to drop the "Pocket". I would think it would have a form factor somewhere between the Pocket 4K and the Ursa Mini. And it to be a 4K S35 with ND filters, more connections, room for a full size battery plate, tiltable screen and priced somewhere around 2.5K$.

Sony, Panasonic and Nikon will be be releasing 4:2:2 10 bit cameras around that price range, they will have lots of great features with greatly improved image, but will still not quite be there in terms of a cinema camera. So I think BM will still have a niche to fill, especially if BRAW is as good as everyone is hoping it will be.

Maybe not next NAB but surely the one after that I would expect their next camera to be announced.

This thing about FF is amazing, considering the oft quoted objection about trying to pull focus with a fast s35 prime, let alone a FF or medium format. Not such an objection to me, set aperture to compensate. But the size of Full Frame lenses for some types of work might be worth thinking about. Multipoint allows Imax sizing with little weight problem, using smaller sensors. BM should definitly prefer keeping main cameras from 2/3rds to s24 or so, unless they go to multipoint, then up to IMAX virtual MF is preferable.

I was looking at an 8k 120fps s24 14 bit sensor the other night from some strange company. 3.2 micron pixel pads I think they had. Plenty of 8k Siny sensors coming out lately too, so there maybe something they could use. But why spend that much on the mini 4.6k, but never revise, expand on it, or cut it down to 4/3rds (for a Alexa'isc like pixel count . Sure it needs a lot less heat, but otherwise it seemed to be something to build upon to reduce that heat. As is, except low light and heat, the 4.6k performance would have been a good past match for a pocket successor.